The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the Central and State governments and the Law Commission of India on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to ensure that land disputes are adjudicated by legally trained professionals, instead of revenue officials without formal legal education. [Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors]
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the plea filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. The petition called for the creation of a dedicated Revenue Judicial Service and uniform minimum qualifications for officials deciding disputes relating to title, succession, inheritance and possession of land.
At the outset, the Court acknowledged the significance of the issue raised, while also flagging institutional concerns.
"Point is very interesting also. But they will say it is for legislature," observed CJI Kant.
Justice Bagchi, during the hearing, sought to examine whether existing judicial directions had been acted upon, asking,
“Was the Chandra Bhan judgment implemented?”
Responding to the query, Upadhyay submitted that the 2005 ruling in Chandra Bhan v. Deputy Director of Consolidation had not been effectively implemented.
He highlighted persistent delays and systemic issues in land adjudication at the grassroots level, stating that he frequently encounters grievances during his visits to districts.
"Not yet. I keep travelling to districts. The most request is about this one. One case is pending before a jagbandi adhikari for 40 years to decide which gift deed is valid," said Upadhyay.
He further argued that the issue also raises concerns of separation of powers, as executive officers continue to exercise quasi-judicial functions affecting civil rights.
After briefly hearing the matter, the Court issued notice, returnable in four weeks.
Among other directions, the plea urged the Court to:
Direct the Centre and States to establish a Revenue Judicial Service cadre.
Mandate minimum legal qualifications and judicial training for officers adjudicating land disputes.
Declare adjudication of such disputes by non-legally trained officials as impermissible.
Ensure supervision by High Courts over these adjudicatory mechanisms.
The petition contended that the existing system of land dispute adjudication, primarily handled by revenue and consolidation officers, suffers from structural deficiencies due to the lack of formal legal training among such authorities. Highlighting the scale of the issue, the plea stated,
"Nearly 66% of the civil cases are related to land disputes. The key lacuna is that land disputes are adjudicated by the Officers lacking Formal Legal Education and Training like PCS-J, resulting in erroneous and inconsistent decisions. This also increases the burden on the judiciary due to frequent challenges."
The plea contends that this framework results in arbitrariness, inconsistent outcomes and systemic delays, thereby violating fundamental rights.
"The present system causes widespread and continuing injury to citizens by subjecting the adjudication of land disputes to revenue officers without legal background, resulting in arbitrary, inconsistent, erroneous decisions. This leads to prolonged uncertainty over property rights, restricts the use and transfer of land, increases litigation and costs, and denies effective access to justice, thereby infringing the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution."
It further argued that revenue officers, drawn from diverse academic backgrounds and often burdened with administrative duties such as law and order, lack the time, training and institutional independence required for judicial decision-making.
Frequent transfers, the plea contended, disrupt continuity in hearings and contribute to delays, while exposure to local pressures and executive control raises concerns about impartiality.
The petition also emphasised that flawed first-instance decisions lead to a cascade of appeals and writ petitions, increasing the burden on constitutional courts.
The plea called for a nationwide uniformity in the adjudicatory framework, arguing that divergent practices across States undermine equality before law,
"Land disputes across India involve similar questions of title, succession, limitation, adverse possession, and interpretation of property laws. Since the nature of these disputes is uniform, the standards governing the competence and independence of adjudicators must also be uniform. Allowing different States to follow divergent approaches in matters affecting identical civil rights results in inconsistency, unpredictability, and unequal protection of laws."
The plea also invoked Article 50 of the Constitution, which mandates separation of the judiciary from the executive. It contended that vesting judicial functions in executive officers compromises decisional independence and violates constitutional principles.
[Read Live Coverage]